Weather and Climate change

[JustWinBaby]

(07-26-2019, 11:19 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL looks like "conscious intellectualism" has returned to illuminate the climate change debate.  Pointing out the simple FACT that you, heretofore, have failed to actually produce any authoritative sources/arguments in support of your climate skepticism, on this or the previous message board, while calling the rest of us fools, hardly demonstrates that I am "extremely unread on the subject," much less "overconfident."  E.g.,  on the "THE ALT-RIGHT HAILS ITS VICTORIOUS GOD-EMPEROR" thread a few years back, when I asked you stop simply claiming you were smart and everyone else was stupid, and finally put up some support other than your own mouth, your non-serious response was "can't prove a negative" (#57). Better said, you couldn't prove anything.

If I am "mocking" you with reference to Forbes/WSJ sources, why should that suggest I've not bothered doing a Google search? Wouldn't I mention the WSJ precisely BECAUSE I KNOW they are the go-to source for articles on what you call"climate alarmism"? And how would that be an "appeal to authority," since the implication of my reference is NOT that WSJ articles on climate are published there to service a general interest in science?  I.e., that the WSJ "fairly regularly have [suspect] articles on 'climate alarmism'" was the point. I'm guessing the consensus of WSJ journalists on the skeptic thesis is, what, 97.1%?

Before posting an unnecessary list of WSJ links to prove what was already my point, you argue that "if there was even a remote chance of an existential threat” the world would have been all-in on nuclear power 20 years ago," a self-refuting point. The smartest guy in the room is surely aware of the Exxon controversy, covering the warming predictions of their own scientists while spending millions to buy journalists and a few climate scientists to promote climate change skepticism. To make your claim, one would have to assume the extraction industries would immediately recognize the "remote chance" and get on board with the greens. So if these for-profit corporations have not cut their profits in favor of environmental friendly policies and alternative energy sources, there must be no global warming?? 

Speaking of industry funding of climate change skepticism, in response to my challenge to provide us with some actual "debunkers," you post a link of top ten "most respected skeptics," which include Jurassic Park novelist Michael Crichton, and EPA ECONOMIST Alan Carlin. Myron Ebell has an MA in POLITICAL science, very helpful for the PR work of skepticism. Did you even check how many of your "most respected skeptics" were climate scientists, or even scientists??

Patrick Michaels certainly is a climate scientist, and among the better paid friends of the industry. But why would your list include Giaever, who, as your source points out "isn't a thought leader, per se, in the climate skeptics scene"? It is because your source is REACHING to create a list of 10 "most respected" for something, nevermind if the respect isn't specifically for climate change science.  That doesn't tell you something?

I'll be reading your posts #51 and 52 over the weekend. C02 levels have come down in the past; "strong evidence against a tipping point"; "nothing special" about man made emissions, WHICH WEREN'T THERE IN THE PAST. LOL

That's a massive backpedal.  Your own words speak for themself.  Why would you ask for Forbes and WSJ links if you knew better? And, um, Forbes generally comes down on your side of the debate, so again you've been caught pretending.

You're also ignoring that I named 3 people not on that list of skeptics - and you can add Lindzen - who testify regularly before Congress.   You asked for skeptics, and that article gave you a starting point with detailed profiles.  One of the people on the list has contributed several articles to WSJ.  Crichton is a writer, but one known for his research....which probably makes him more qualified than most of the "journalists" who have informed your opinion.  Scott Adams (yes, Dilbert fame) is another who's been digging into the research to see how it aligns with what is reported in the media.

You ask for skeptics, and then predictably dismiss the majority.  I don't know how you can claim to be read on the subject when your first reaction is to dismiss them without being bothered to even see what they have to.  Asking to disprove what you believe when you appear incapable of stating what you actually believe and why.

And by "nothing special about man-made CO2", I'm talking the carbon atom, which there are differences in the chemical signature but the effects on warming are the same.  Do you really not understand that, or are uninformed attacks and insults how you intend to debate the subject?  And I see you continue to fundamentally misunderstand how science works, expecting a proof the existential threat isn't real.  By the way, you do understand what a "tipping point" is, right?  Your last line seems to indicate that you don't.